Globalization, Communication And Postmodernity Describing The Shift From Web 1.0 To Web 2.0 - Essay Example

? Globalization, Communication and Postmodernity DESCRIBING THE SHIFT FROM WEB 0 TO WEB 2.0 I. INTRODUCTION The shift from the read-only Web 0 tothe read-write 2.0 has significantly changed both web business model and web architecture manifested even by various web services and enterprises. While Web 1.0 practiced a two-pronged architecture consisting of admin and viewer, Web 2.0 introduced a three-pronged structure comprising of admin, database, and user transitioning the architecture of presentation to participation. Meanwhile, the shift has also altered the business-focus of the web from product-based to service-based approaches. With the advantages offered by the features of Web 2.0, adoption of the innovation is probable as explained in the Diffusions Theory of Rogers. In the following sections, this paper attempts to explain the shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 in the areas of business model and web architecture, while describing the different manifestations of the shift in the analysis of selected Web 1.0 and 2.0 applications and services. II. DISCUSSION a. The Overview: Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 From the read-only interface offered by Web 1.0, the introduction of Web 2.0 has opened various means of web communications making the web interface not only as a source of information, but also as an interactive zone. Blogs, wikis, social network sites, online games, and even e-commerce have redefined practices of communication in the postmodern times re-introducing the processes and activities in a globalized approach. Starting from Web 1.0 as the first generation World Wide Web, the first web interface offered read-only contents via static websites with limited performance and visual parameters, zero to minimal interaction with the site, and most importantly, web communication fundamentally facilitated via e-mail. Shuen (2008) has described Web 1.0 as a digitized place for searching information, for making available and transmitting various downloadables, and for fashioning e-commerce approach from the traditional mail-based interfaces. Added by Oreilly (2007), Web 1.0 treated web as a platform for presenting information using one-way channel of communication with limited response mechanisms. For instance, Web 1.0 services, such as Mp3.com, Akamai, Ofoto, content management systems, and others, are the means utilized for conveying content, downloadables, and information. Meanwhile, business model of Web 1.0 follows the principles of treating users as audience and speculating consumers (Eighmeya & McCordb, 1998), admin-based web business (Oreilly, 2007) and lastly, one-way search and one-way feed of information (Sinclair, et al., 2006). These details support and explain the architectural background of Web 1.0 that stems from the identified “architecture of presentation” (Oreilly, 2007; Sinclair, et al., 2006). On the other hand, the upgraded version known as Web 2.0 is characterized by the read-write interface where values emerge from the contribution of the larger viewers instead of the traditional command and control of information (Lytras, et al., 2008). The objectives of Web 2.0 are to enhance creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users, such as the development of so-called web communities through various social networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folknomies (Zhang, 2008). Gossen (2011) has identified four key characteristics of Web 2.0. He claims that web 2.0 fosters web presence on the web by allowing the option of regular updating, responding to, and even creating content under a user profile. Secondly, Web 2.0 allows personal modification of web-interface affecting the personal web experience of a single user with a 2.0-based website, and more notably, website contents are user generated often a result of collaboration between users and site developers. He also asserts that, Web 2.0 is about social participation through various web activities, such as ratings, rankings, commenting, feedback mechanisms, and others all aimed at interacting with other users. Aside from its technological approaches, business models of web 2.0 stem from emergent forms of social networking, information aggregators of different types such as price comparison services, product surveys, exploitation of user-contributed content to facilitate added-value to commercial products/services, as well as use of user data for personalization service provision (Tredinnick, 2006). These brief presented attributes of Web 2.0 are strong supported by the architectural foundation of its interface concept derived from the “architecture of collaboration” (Oreilly, 2007; Sinclair, et al., 2006). Having described the distinctions and characteristics of both Web 1.0 and 2.0, the following section further explores the shift in the light of its business models and architectural foundations. b. Describing the Shift in Architecture The shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in terms of web architecture is fundamentally described as the transition from one-way data and/or view update via Html facilitated by the UI event controller (admin) via Perl or CGI scripts to the addition of interactive logical input capable of simulating data or model changes. Zelkowitz (2009) has illustrated this model of architectural shift below: As illustrated in the above-presented figure, web 2.0 applications still resemble Web 1.0 architecture except for the following components. Firstly, Web Browser restricts the rendering and visualization of the application’s view of permitted sections. Secondly, the function of any user-side controller logic is to select a specific view or to determine the details of the selected view. Lastly, the bulk of the application’s controller code, such as the business logic, executes on the server, as does the code that accesses and updates the application’s data model (Zelkowitz, 2009, p. 229). These significant elements in Web 2.0 have shifted several focal points of Web 1.0. For instance, focal point has shifted from content presentation to content processing such as content management systems to wikis and DoubleClick to Google AdSense. The shift has also been observed in shift from access-download to communication-interaction (i.e. Akamai to BitTorrent, mp3.com to Napster), (3) from individualized to customized/personalized (i.e. personal websites to blogging) as well as from static to evolving (i.e. Netscape to Google). More notably, shift has been observed from one-to-many to collaborative, one-to-one, and many-to-many (i.e. Britannica Online to Wikipidea), from web of documents to web of data, and from communities of practice to social networking (i.e. eBay, Amazon) (Silva, 2007). Common denominators among the given focal points of changes and examples of web services are the use of collective intelligence of all its users made possible by the architectural structure of Web 2.0 (see Figure 1), and the use of specialized database in Web 2.0 to collect and to contain all user intelligence. In the post-modern era, the Web 1.0 web applications have been considered as a platform for conveying messages in a global perspective. This follows the Architecture of Presentation characterized by web applications are server-focused products structured in static user-generated content using framesets, table positioning, and HTML extensions and forms all aimed at content transmission via loading user uploaded data as selected by the viewer (Sinclair, et al., 2006). Secondly, blogging, tagging, and/or wikis are all facilitated via HTML anchortext spread across the entire web and used by search engines as rich source of web page annotations for view searches (Kinsella, et al., 2008). On the other hand, Web 2.0 fostered the Architecture of Participation characterized mainly by considering the general users as both the “content source” and the “audience” (Oreilly, 2007), while at the same time, web applications are considered as services and/or tools for channeling user dynamic interactivity, collaboration, and personalization (Silva, 2007). Unlike the limited communication channels offered by Web 1.0 architecture, the addition of content database allowed massive exchanges of information that transcended the traditional journalism with postmodern sensibilities. Wall (2005) has explained that the features of Web 2.0 enabled the shift by fostering a new genre of journalism emphasizing personalization, audience participation in content creation, and formation of fragmented stories interdependent with other websites. For instance, blogging, wikis, and tagging have replaced the use of personal websites when Web 2.0 was introduced. In personal websites, user interaction and participation are limited by the manner in which HTML pages are updated, which would normally require resubmission of HTML content and format into the server in case updates for new content are needed (Campesato & Nilson, 2010, pp. 10-11). Added by Kinsella, et al. (2008), users/viewers are only able to locate the Web 1.0 pages by accessing annotated URL through anchortext, which limits user browsing and web experience. On the other hand, Web 2.0 architecture allows web development techniques (i.e. AJAX) to update only a portion of web pages through “partial page refresh” that maintains page state, saves input text, and allows faster performance (Kolbitsch & Maurer, 2006). Through these features, users can open their personal web sites to the public with ease by simply signing up to service providers (i.e. blogger.com, xanga.com, sixapart.com) and placing their user-generated content chronological arranged in order of publication date – a web service known as Weblogs or Blogs. Similar to personal website 1.0, blog contents or “blog posts” are controlled by bloggers usually with heavily opinionated contents with combination of links to other blog posts or articles, video clips, or images with blog content mix varying among bloggers (Campesato & Nilson, 2010). Although modifications of blog posts are restricted mainly to the blogger, viewers, especially the non-programmers, are given the privilege to write commentaries on the user-generated content, which subsequently facilitates the interchange of communication. Additionally, unlike the anchortext feature in Web 1.0, the main advantage of these blogs made possible in Web 2.0 technology is the permanence of content each containing a unique URL, which allows the indexing of posted content along with the comments by search engine to facilitate a larger audience (Lytras, et al., 2008). Meanwhile, other Web 2.0 applications, such as Wikis, RSS, and tagging, follow almost the similar principle with blogging except for minor differences. For instance, wikis enable the collaborative creation of original content by allowing the editing of content by anyone at any time, which is the major difference between wiki and blog (Wheeler, et al., 2008). Due to these features, large scale wiki environments, such as Wikipedia, usually set role definitions describing who can perform functions of update, restore, delete, and creation (Lytras, et al., 2008). Meanwhile, RSS is an XML-based content-syndication protocol that capacitates web sites in sharing and aggregating information depending on the user requirements based on notification model (Mu, 2008). In RSS, end users are required to register in order to receive updates on the requested information allowing faster communication stream. Lastly, while traditional information architecture utilize taxonomical scheme in classifying web content, another collaborative activity featured in Web 2.0 application is social tagging characterized by the online sharing of content using keywords or tags as a way of organizing content for future navigation, filtering, or searches (Lytras, et al., 2008). Flickr, Facebook, and iStockPhotos are the popular websites utilizing this technology transforming personal content 1.0 approach into collaborative and globalized means of communication. The shift in the architecture has permitted not only new methodologies for communication and collaboration, but also new perspectives of sharing and distributing information to a wider and growing audience. c. Describing the Shift in Business Model Aside from architectural shifts, the transition from Web 1.0 to 2.0 has also changed the commercial view of the internet. Netscape as the bearer for Web 1.0 and Google for Web 2.0 have been considered by various scholars (Oreilly, 2007; Levy, 2009) as appropriate examples for describing the shift in business models. First is the different business models followed by the two companies, particularly with Netscape following a paradigm of “the web as platform,” while Google following “the web as service” (Oreilly, 2007). These two perspectives alone greatly shaped their views and approaches in handling their web business operations. As for Netscape, the company’s 1.0 flagship was mainly derived from a desktop application – Netscape Navigator (web browser) - designed to dominate the browser market via premium-priced server products and control over web content presentation through their browser application (Oreilly, 2007). Following Web 1.0 features, Netscape was able to utilize the proprietary benefits of the late technology by providing a huge collection of HTML pages made accessible via the browser, and providing a user-friendly interface to allow quick web surfing and e-commerce (Fluck, et al., 2011). Due to these two competitive edges, Netscape immediately attracted the larger community of non-programmers although this phase became short-termed. Contrary to the marketing approach made by Netscape, Google’s business model followed the marketing and selling of “Google as a Web Service” functioning not as a venue, but as a tool for web searching (Levy, 2009). Unlike Netscape’s browser, Google introduced its service through a scheme based on indexing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), which are pointers to resources on the web to which request methods can be applied to generate potentially different responses. Together with HTTP – the request/response protocol, Google is able to index pages allowing instant access to information on a global scale (Fensel, et al., 2011, p. 88). Although, Oreilly (2007) has pointed out the competency requisite of Google stemmed from the need of Google to utilize a comprehensive database management in handling the collected data indexes, which never became an issue with software-based competitor - Netscape. The initiative of Google to adopt Web 2.0 paved the way for the entry of other web services adopting the same web technology, such as eBay, Amazon, Flickr, OpenBC, MySpace, Yahoo, and others. The above illustration is one of the several examples demonstrating the shift in the business approach relative to the shift of Web 1.0 to 2.0. As explained in the studies of Tredinnick (2006) and Eighmeya & McCordb (1998), the changes in business model is attributable to the following factors. Web 2.0 required lesser capitals to assemble compared to the traditional Web 1.0 web applications. Secongly, Web 2.0 applications provide larger scale of reach with faster rate and convenient means of content updating. Lastly, Web 2.0 permits self-structuring through user-generated content. Meanwhile, Hoegg, et al. (2006) have added another proposed cause of the shift in business model stemmed from the creation of a digital market in a digital community residing in a digital space. For instance, Google’s AdSense has markedly profited US$ 2.43 billion from AdSense (Google, 2012) during the first quarter of 2011 derived from two fundamental components, which include the database of indexed web pages, and the database of AdSense partners and sponsors. Oreilly (2007) has attributed the successes of major Web 2.0-based companies to the former limiting competency of such applications – database management. In support of these arguments, several scholarly authors have suggested that, unlike the product-selling focus of the previous attempts to commercialize the internet (i.e. Netscape Navigator), Web 2.0 allowed the commercialization of web services via the following factors. First, it places added-value to commercial products (i.e. Google AdSense) to instantaneously reach a wider market based on identified interest statistics obtained from blogospheres (Kumar & Novak, 2004). Secondly, it allows opening of a wider venue for web domain personalization (i.e. MySpace, Facebook, etc.) to encourage wide market participation in the identified interest subjects (i.e. users interested in food subject are likely to view food-related sites with food-related advertisements) (Eighmeya & McCordb, 1998). Thirdly, it fosters generation of a digital market via social networking sites (i.e. Facebook, Friendster, and Twitter). Finally, it supports information aggregators (i.e. Blog interest-based marketing approaches). d. Theoretical Analysis of the Shift The shifting from Web 1.0 to 2.0 has evidently shaped web architecture from one-way channel comprised of two user components (user admin and audience) to a multi-channeled system facilitated by three components (user admin, database, audience). It has also shaped internet commercialization from product-focused selling to service-focused commodities. In pragmatic analysis of the transition, the Diffusion of Innovations by E. M. Rogers suggests an explanation in the area of Web 2.0 adaptation resulting to the shift from Web 1.0. Based on the fundamental assumptions of diffusion theory, a latest technology, such as Web 2.0, shall only be adopted if users perceive it positively based on five identified criteria. The first one is relative advantage or the perceived and rated advantage comparison between the existing product and the product being introduced. Secondly, we have the perceived compatibility of the innovation to current values and usage. Triability, which is the third criteria, allows consumers to test or experiment on a given innovation. The fourth criteria is complexity or the ease of use and understanding of features. A last criterion is observability or the perceived impact of the innovation to others (Shuen, 2008, pp. 78-79). This section utilizes the presented case between Google and Netscape in relation to the Diffusion Theory. Comparing Web 2.0 to 1.0, relative advantages of the innovation can be derive from (1) collaborative nature of Google’s indexing of URI compared to anchortext utilized by Netscape, (2) wider reach provided via Google indexing vs. Netscape’s collection of HTML pages compiled in the browser, and (3) user-focused system of Google vs. Netscape’s server-focused system. Meanwhile, according to Cammaerts (2008) and Goode (2009), the shift from web 1.0 to web 2.0 architectural structures has permitted significant social trends, such as crowdsourcing, citizen journalism, viral programming, viral marketing, long tail, and others. These social trends maybe new to most societies; however, these trends conform to the current values of individualism and functionalities needed in the post-modern societies. In terms of triability, Google, as an open source search engine, allows anyone to conduct their personal searches using their services unlike Netscape Navigator that requires a purchase of their software before searches can be conducted. Lastly, in terms of complexity, Google allows access even for individuals with limited knowledge on programming, which is normally required when updating or creating Web 1.0-based contents. Therefore, with consumers perceiving majority of the identified criteria positively, adoption of innovation is facilitated leading to the shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 transitioning as well both web architecture and business models based on Web 2.0. III. CONCLUSION The shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 has allowed vast changes in both web architecture and internet business models. In Web 1.0, significant limitations have been identified as, one-to-many communication system, presentation-based system, and difficulty of updating restricting the potentials of interaction. Therefore, as suggested by the precept application of E. M. Roger’s Diffusion Theory, Web 2.0 has been accepted by the public after perceiving the capacity of the innovation in countering the limitations of Web 1.0 by enabling multi-faceted communication channels, participation-based system, and enabling of user-generated contents. Following this, the shift has restructured majority of web architecture from the traditional user admin to viewer diagram of Web 1.0 to a three-component-based (admin-database-viewer) system of Web 2.0. Additionally, the shift has also changed web business models from product- to service-based approach as explained in the utilized case of Google representing the flagship of Web 2.0 vs. Netscape for Web 1.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cammaerts, B., 2008. Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Culture & Critique, 1(4), pp. 358-377. Campesato, O. & Nilson, K., 2010. Web 2.0 Fundamentals With Ajax, Development Tools, and Mobile Platforms. 1st ed. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Eighmeya, J. & McCordb, L., 1998. Adding Value in the Information Age: Uses and Gratifications of Sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research, 41(3), p. 187–194. Fensel, D., Facca, F. M., Simperl, E. & Toma, I., 2011. Semantic Web Services. 1st ed. New York: Springer Press. Fluck, W., Pease, D. E. & Rowe, J. C., 2011. Re-Framing the Transnational Turn in American Studies. 1st ed. New York: UPNE. Goode, L., 2009. Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11(8), pp. 1287-1305. Google, 2012. Google Investor Relations. [Online] Available at: http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q1_google_earnings.html [Accessed 17 April 2012]. Gossen, F., 2011. Relevance of Web 2.0 for the United States Presidential Election in 2008. 1st ed. Berlin: GRIN Verlag. Hoegg, R., Martignoni, R., Meckel, M. & Stanoevska, K., 2006. Overview of business models for Web 2 . 0 communities. Communication, 6(3), pp. 1-17. Kinsella, S., Budura, A., Skobeltsyn, G. & Michel, S., 2008. From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and back -: how did your grandma use to tag?. New York, NY, ACM. Kolbitsch, J. & Maurer, H., 2006. The transformation of the Web: How emerging communities shape the information we consume. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 12(2), pp. 187-213. Kumar, R. & Novak, J., 2004. Structure and Evolution of Blogspace. Communication of the ACM, 27(12), pp. 35-39. Levy, M., 2009. WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp. 120- 34. Lytras, M. D., Damiani, E. & Pablos, P. O. d., 2008. Web 2.0: The Business Model. 1st ed. New York: Springer. Mu, C., 2008. Using RSS feeds and social bookmarking tools to keep current. Library Hi Tech News, 25(9), pp. 10-11. Oreilly, T., 2007. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Communications & Strategies, Volume 1, p. 17. Ruhe, V. & Zumbo, B. D., 2009. Evaluation in Distance Education and E-Learning: The Unfolding Model. 1st ed. New York: Guilford Press. Shuen, A., 2008. Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide. 1st ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.. Shuen, A., 2008. Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide. 1st ed. London: O'Reilly Media, Inc.. Silva, J., 2007. Applying Virtual Learning Environments in a Portuguese High School Context. [Online] Available at: http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~pro05009/docs/sdia07.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2012]. Sinclair, G., McClaren, M. & Griffin, M. J., 2006. E-Learning and Beyond. Victoria, BC: Michael J. Griffin. Tredinnick, L., 2006. Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future?. Business Information Review, 23(4), p. 228–234. Wall, M., 2005. ‘Blogs of war’: Weblogs as news. Journalism, 6(2), pp. 153-172. Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. & Wheeler, D., 2008. The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), p. 987–995. Zelkowitz, M., 2009. Advances in Computers: Social Networking and The Web. 1st ed. New York: Academic Press. Zhang, Y., 2008. Engineering Issues for Web 2.0. Auckland, New Zealand, Springer Press. Read More